DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-13 are currently pending of which claims 9-13 are withdrawn. Claim 1 is currently amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/15/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagisawa (Daikin discloses molding samples of a fluoropolymer “PFA powder” for 3D printers under development, INTERMOLD 2019, published April 19, 2019) English translation provided in IDS filed 12/30/2022.
Regarding claims 1-4, Yagisawa discloses a three-dimensional shaped object formed from a PFA powder (page 3, sample product figures). The samples formed in powder bed melt bonding method (page 5, title) and thus would be a laminate of layers according to the slice data of the three-dimensional structure. Alternatively, the limitation of “the three-dimensional shaped object is a laminate of layers according to the slice data of the three-dimensional structure” does not appear to impart any structure which would not be met by any three-dimensional object.
Yagisawa further teaches the product having a breaking stress (MPa) 15.3 or 30.3 (page 6, mechanical properties of the molded products using PFA powder), overlapping the claimed tensile stress at break of 9 MPa or more in claim 1, 10 MPa or more in claim 3, and 19 MPa or more in claim 3; and a breaking elongation (%) of 154 and 367 (page 6, mechanical properties of the molded products using PFA powder), overlapping the tensile elongation at break in the direction perpendicular to the shaped plane of 20% or more in claim 1, and 200% or more in claim 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Yagisawa does not expressly teach the method of punching the object after shaping, however Yagisawa teaches the same structure of a dumbbell-like form (page 7, molded product).
Please note, claim 6 includes product by process language with regards to the recitation of “punching”. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al. (US 2008/0199699).
Regarding claims 1-4, Tsuji discloses a PTFE powder for forming moldings (0002). Please note, the limitation of “the three-dimensional shaped object is a laminate of layers according to the slice data of the three-dimensional structure” does not appear to impart any structure which would not be met by any three-dimensional object, including the moldings of Tsuji.
Tsuji teaches the moldings having a tensile strength of not less than 58.7 MPa (0028), overlapping the claimed tensile stress at break of 9 MPa or more in claim 1, 10 MPa or more in claim 3, and 19 MPa or more in claim 3; and tensile elongation of not less than 423% (0032), overlapping the tensile elongation at break in the direction perpendicular to the shaped plane of 20% or more in claim 1, and 200% or more in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Tsuji teaches a surface roughness less than 0.92 µm (0021), overlapping the claimed surface roughness of 30 µm or less.
Regarding the overlapping ranges discussed in claims 1-5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Tsuji teaches punching the specimens after molding (0073).
Please note, claim 6 includes product by process language with regards to the recitation of “punching”. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 8, Tsuji teaches the modified-PTFE including tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkoxyethylene (0091), or tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene (0087) copolymers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagisawa or Tsuji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taira et al. (US 2003/0220458).
Regarding claim 7, Yagisawa or Tsuji disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Neither reference teaches a melt flow rate for the fluororesin.
Taira, in the analogous field of fluorine-containing resin molded articles (0001), discloses a fluororesin having a melt flow rate of preferably 0.5 to 3 g/10 min, overlapping the claimed MFR of 0.1 g/10 mins or more.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the fluororesins of Yagisawa or Tsuji to have a flow rate of 0.5 to 3 g/10 min, as taught by Taira, for molding into a tube structure and for excellent stress cracking resistance and melt-moldability (0025).
Claims 1-4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartow et al. (US 2019/0022928).
Regarding claims 1-4, Bartow discloses a three-dimensional shaped object formed from fluoropolymer (0012) The laminate formed by sequential deposition of layers of material from a 3D model (0031) and thus would be a laminate of layers according to the slice data of the three-dimensional structure. Alternatively, the limitation of “the three-dimensional shaped object is a laminate of layers according to the slice data of the three-dimensional structure” does not appear to impart any structure which would not be met by any three-dimensional object.
Bartow discloses the tensile strength at break of at least 5 MPa and elongation at break in the z-direction (perpendicular to the x and y direction) of at least 100% (0186, 0189), overlapping the claimed 9 MPa or more and 20% or more, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Bartow teaches a tensile strength of from 12 to 24 MPa (0186), overlapping the claimed 10 MPa or more in claim 2 and 19 MPa or more in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Bartow teaches an elongation at break of 150 to 400% (0186), overlapping the claimed 200% or more.
Regarding claim 7, Bartow teaches a melt flow of 50 g/10 min or less (0011), overlapping the claimed MFR of 0.1 g/10 min or more.
Regarding claim 8, Bartow teaches fluoropolymers including copolymers of tetrafluoroethylene and perfluorinated comonomers including hexafluoropropylene and perfluoroalkoxyethylene (0088).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartow as applied to claim 1 above with evidentiary reference Xu (US 2015/0290707).
Regarding claim 5, Bartow discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. While Bartow teaches the surface is smooth (0173), Bartow does not expressly teach a surface roughness value (Ra) of 30 µm or less.
However, as evidenced by Xu, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that Bartow teaches an overlapping range of surface roughness as additively manufactures parts typically have a surface roughness between 4.4 and 15.2 µm (0004).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varis et al. (US 2013/0207291).
Regarding claim 6, Bartow discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bartow does not teach the three-dimensional shaped object subjected to punching.
Varis, in the analogous field of composite products (0005) teaches processing a product surface with punching (0036).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to machine the surface of the object of Bartow with punching as taught by Varis, to shape the surface to a desired form (0038).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and Declaration filed 09/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments and the Declaration argue that the tensile elongation of Yagisawa is parallel to the shaped plane and does not disclose a tensile elongation in the Z-direction.
The claims do not limit the shaped plane as being the XY-plane of the three-dimensional shaped object, nor do the claims require the direction perpendicular to be Z-direction. As the XY elongation at break is perpendicular to a shaped plane of the three-dimensional shaped object Yagisawa meets the claimed limitations.
Applicant argues that Tsuji does not teach a three-dimensional shaped object that is a laminate of layers according to the slice data of the three-dimensional structure.
The claims do not require the structure of a laminate of multiple layers. As best understood the layers according to slice data are a mathematical description opposed to a structural distinction. A unitary object of a single “layer” when mathematically modeled can include creating a plurality of layers/slices for the purpose of e.g., calculating a volume. Slices as best understood are of the software modeling of the three-dimensional shaped object which does not result in a structure of the final product.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781